[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

Laura Rozen reports from Washington, DC as a national security correspondent for The Washington Monthly and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, is a frequent contributor to National Journal and Mother Jones, and writes the blog War and Piece. She's better informed and sourced than just about anyone writing on Iran, and consistently breaks news and offers smart analysis. I recently asked her six questions about the Bush Administration's Iran policy.

1. How would you describe the Bush Administration's strategy towards Iran?
The administration's Iran policy was for years somewhat paralyzed by Iraq and an internal argument inside the administration between those who advocate “regime change” vs. those who advocate “behavior change.” Led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the administration has come out pretty clearly in favor of “behavior change” towards Iran in recent months. The current effort to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program is headed by Rice's deputy, Nick Burns, and its goal is to create international diplomatic and economic pressure to isolate Iran. In return, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, have agreed to suspend U.N. sanctions on Iran for the duration of talks and have offered Iran pages and pages of inducements for giving up its nuclear program. The full list of incentives is unpublished, but it includes a nuclear energy program that would keep enriched fuel offshore, as well as economic inducements, such as membership in the W.T.O.

There's a second track of U.S. policy to Iran which involves promoting democracy in Iran over the longer term. As part of that, the U.S. has set up "listening posts" in countries with large Iranian communities—the U.A.E., Azerbaijan, Germany, Turkey, the U.K. –and has created a virtual U.S. embassy for Iran in neighboring Dubai, where it talks to people coming out from Iran, arranges cultural events, and almost certainly gathers intelligence. All this said, the "behavior change" advocates are opposed by people in and out of the administration who still advocate for regime change. This side argues that you could never trust any agreement reached with the current Iranian government and that holding direct talks mounts to appeasement of a brutal regime that sponsors terrorism.

2. Who are the major players in the regime change camp?
There are a few civilians who were brought into the Pentagon during the first term to essentially pursue a regime change option. Some are still there working for a small six-person Iran office whose de facto head is Abram Shulsky, who formerly led the controversial Office of Special Plans. In the White House, some in the Vice President's office are believed to be skeptical that Tehran will alter its nuclear plans in response to diplomatic or economic pressure. A few people who worked for Liz Cheney at the State Department also favor regime change for Iran, and Syria too. Outside of the administration, Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen at the American Enterprise Institute champion the idea of an Iranian opposition movement rising up to overthrow the regime with American support. There's another group of mostly conservative former officials who want the U.S. to take the Mujahedeen e-Khalq off the list of terrorist groups and work with them to overthrow the Tehran regime. But Ledeen has spoken negatively about the MEK, which is despised by other Iranian opposition groups for being a cult and having fought against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

In making these high-profile announcements, perhaps the Bush Administration was trying to signal to Congress, the public and the Iranian diaspora that this is something it is committed to. The international consequences may not have been carefully thought out. 3. How do these people believe regime change will unfold?
The group led by Perle and Ledeen argue that with sufficient U.S. support, and training, a coalition of Iranian groups—students, exiles, ethnic minorities, unions, and civic society groups—could topple the Iranian regime. Yet many people who have recently spent time in Iran say that any such revolution in Iran can't be controlled from outside, isn't imminent, and that overt U.S. support could be dangerous for those involved. It's all about interpretations of reality, as it was with the debate about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. One wonders if those advocating for heavy Washington involvement see that strategy as a means of deepening U.S. involvement to a point that military confrontation ultimately becomes inevitable.

I know several of the Iranians who are working to promote democracy from the outside, and am often amazed that they feel the American government must get behind their movement before anything can happen in Iran. It's so different from what you see in opposition movements in other countries, where the American role was far more limited. For some reason, a segment of the Iranian diaspora is fixated on the U.S. government being the prime driver of regime change.

4. The Bush Administration has appropriated tens of millions of dollars to “promote democracy” Iran. Who is receiving that money?
A State Department official involved with the Iran democracy portfolio recently told me that approximately $66 million was approved by Congress, with half going to U.S. government-funded broadcasters—the Voice of America Farsi language service and Radio Farda. There's currently a fight over the broadcasting content, with hardliners such as Senator Tom Coburn arguing that the Farsi language broadcasting should be more aggressively hostile to the Tehran regime and promote uprisings. The list of recipients of the other $33 million is classified, in order to protect recipients who may be targeted by the Iran regime. But part of that money has reportedly been distributed through U.S.-based human rights groups and outfits such as Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and the National Democratic Institute.

. . . there's not a great desire at the State Department or the Pentagon for another war. 5. How has Iran reacted to that program?
The Tehran regime has long had a truly horrific record of jailing and torturing students, bloggers, journalists, academics, trade unionists, women demonstrators, and think-tank people with ties to western colleagues, and even the lawyers for some of these people. Since the Bush Administration announced that it would fund opposition groups, the Iranian government has arrested intellectuals, writers, and activists who have participated in conferences abroad that were sponsored by private NGOs, and accused them of being involved in American-backed efforts to overthrow the regime. Surely if the U.S. wanted to promote democracy in Iran, it would have been better not to discuss it so loudly. In making these high-profile announcements, perhaps the Bush Administration was trying to signal to Congress, the public and the Iranian diaspora that this is something it is committed to. The international consequences may not have been carefully thought out.

6. How will the conflict over Iran's nuclear program be resolved? Is there likely to be a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran before Bush leaves office?
Burns and Rice have been somewhat successful in cobbling together an international alliance to isolate Iran, and it's possible that a North Korea-style agreement could be pulled off. I think that's what Rice and Burns are hoping to achieve; there's not a great desire at the State Department or the Pentagon for another war. Some of this depends on what happens in Iraq and the larger region. If by September the “surge” is deemed to be ineffective, the Bush Administration may seek to blame Iran for its continuing difficulties. So I would not be surprised later this fall to see an uptick in Iran-bashing from elements of the administration and associated constituencies trying to gin up confrontation._________________Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/

OTTAWA -- The "hateful" views of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad undermine diplomatic efforts to bring peace to the greater Middle East, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said yesterday on the eve of historic talks between Tehran and Washington.

Mr. MacKay offered that assessment as the outspoken Iranian leader ratcheted up tension with the United States yesterday when he told a news conference in the United Arab Emirates that his country would strongly retaliate against any American attack on his country to stop its pursuit of nuclear energy.

"If they make such a mistake the retaliation of Iran would be severe," Mr. Ahmadinejad told reporters in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi, where he was making a historic visit to the prosperous Persian Gulf state.

Mr. Ahmadinejad vowed that "superpowers" would not prevent a "strong" Iran from defending itself as it pursues its goal of peaceful nuclear energy.

The United States opposes Iran's ambitions, saying it is a ruse to develop a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. has pushed for tougher United Nations economic sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments yesterday followed remarks Friday by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney -- from the deck of USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf -- warning that the U.S. and its allies would not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

The bitter exchange comes as talks between Iranian and U.S. officials on the future of Iraq's security are scheduled to take place in Baghdad later this week.

The two countries severed formal diplomatic relations in 1979. Mr. Ahmadinejad confirmed yesterday Iran would participate in the talks, but wouldn't say when.

"Both sides prefer the talks to be held in Iraq in presence of the Iraqi government," he said, before taking another shot at the U.S. "Iran and Iraq have very friendly ties.

"Those who came to the region from thousands of kilometres away cause trouble."

In Ottawa, Mr. MacKay blamed Mr. Ahmadinejad for pushing the limits of international diplomacy as the Iraq talks approach.

"For many countries, maintaining a relationship with Iran tests the bounds of diplomacy, especially when the views of Iran's president are hateful, ludicrous and beyond the realm of constructive dialogue," Mr. Mac- Kay's office said in a statement.

"Peace is Canada's goal and we support the United States' effort to engage all regional partners in supporting the Iraqi government's attempts to bring safety and security to the area."

Mr. MacKay also told the House of Commons yesterday that Canada would continue to press Iran to improve its human rights record. On Sunday, as he began the first visit by an Iranian leader to the UAE since the founding of the UAE in 1971, Ahmadinejad called on all Gulf states to get rid of foreign forces in the region as he led a raucous anti-American rally at a Dubai soccer stadium.

The UAE is an U.S. ally, and is also the host of the Canadian Forces main air base in the region that supports the mission to Afghanistan.

But , the UAE does not trumpet its alliance with the West in order to preserve good relations with other Muslim countries in the region at a time when the popularity of the United States is low.

Dubai, the UAE's and the region's economic hub, is home to hundreds of thousands of Iranian descent, many of who make up the merchant class. Dubai exported $10 billion in goods to Iran last year.

Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Wed, 05/16/2007 - 17:53.
When Adm. William Fallon was named to replace Gen. John Abizaid as chief of Central Command in January, we recognized it as part of a tilt to the "pragmatists" and away from the hubristic neocons in Washington. Now comes word (via InterPress Service, May 15) that Fallon essentially "vetoed" an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three in February, and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM. The story by Gareth Porter relies on anonymous sources, but seems plausible enough. An excerpt:

At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran’s leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon. The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.

"He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it," says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon’s message from a Pentagon official who had read it.

Fallon’s refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch."

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

The decision to send a second carrier task group to the Gulf had been officially requested by Fallon’s predecessor at CENTCOM, Gen. John Abizaid, according to a Dec. 20 report in the Washington Post, which called it part of a strategy of sending "pointed messages" to Iran.

WASHINGTON -- Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush's nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.

Fallon's resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration's Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon's resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran.

The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike.

Admiral Fallon's resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Fallon, then Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, had been associated with naval aviation throughout his career, and last January, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates publicly encouraged the idea that the appointment presaged greater emphasis on the military option in regard to the U.S. conflict with Iran.

Explaining why he recommended Fallon, Gates said, "As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Fallon to have the job."

Bush administration officials had just leaked to CBS News and the New York Times in December that the USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships would be sent to the Gulf in January six weeks earlier than originally planned in order to overlap with the USS Eisenhower and to "send a message to Tehran".

But that was not the end of the signaling to Iran by naval deployment planned by administration officials. The plan was for the USS Nimitz and its associated vessels, scheduled to sail into the Gulf in early April, to overlap with the other two carrier strike groups for a period of months, so that all three would be in the Gulf simultaneously.

Two well-informed sources say they heard about such a plan being pushed at high levels of the administration, and Newsweek's Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari reported Feb. 19 that the deployment of a third carrier group to the Gulf was "likely".

That would have brought the U.S. naval presence up to the same level as during the U.S. air campaign against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, when the Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk carrier groups were all present. Two other carrier groups helped coordinate bombing sorties from the Mediterranean.

The deployment of three carrier groups simultaneously was not part of a plan for an actual attack on Iran, but was meant to convince Iran that the Bush administration was preparing for possible war if Tehran continued its uranium enrichment programme.

At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided, there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran's leaders, according to an account by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon. The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war, in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But Fallon, who was scheduled to become the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16, responded to the proposed plan by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U.S. naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted.

"He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it," says the source, who obtained the gist of Fallon's message from a Pentagon official who had read it.

Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

Fallon's opposition to adding a third carrier strike group to the two already in the Gulf represented a major obstacle to the plan. The decision to send a second carrier task group to the Gulf had been officially requested by Fallon's predecessor at CENTCOM, Gen. John Abizaid, according to a Dec. 20 report by the Washington Post's Peter Baker. But as Baker reported, the circumstances left little doubt that Abizaid was doing so because the White House wanted it as part of a strategy of sending "pointed messages" to Iran.

CENTCOM commander Fallon's refusal to request the deployment of a third carrier strike group meant that proceeding with that option would carry political risks. The administration chose not to go ahead with the plan. Two days before the Nimitz sailed out of San Diego for the Gulf on Apr. 1, a Navy spokesman confirmed that it would replace the Eisenhower, adding, "There is no plan to overlap them at all."

The defeat of the plan for a third carrier task group in the Gulf appears to have weakened the position of Cheney and other hawks in the administration who had succeeded in selling Bush on the idea of a strategy of coercive threat against Iran.

Within two weeks, the administration's stance had already begun to shift dramatically. On Jan. 12, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had dismissed direct talks with Iran in the absence of Tehran's suspension of its uranium enrichment programme as "extortion". But by the end of February, Rice had gotten authorisation for high level diplomatic contacts with Iran in the context of a regional meeting on Iraq in Baghdad.

The explanation for the shift offered by administration officials to the New York Times was that the administration now felt that it "had leverage" on Iran. But that now appears to have been a cover for a retreat from the more aggressive strategy previously planned.

Throughout March and April, the Bush administration avoided aggressive language and the State Department openly sought diplomatic engagement with Iran, culminating in the agreement confirmed by U.S. officials last weekend that bilateral talks will begin with Iran on Iraq.

Despite Vice President Dick Cheney's invocation of the military option from the deck of the USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf last week, the strategy of escalating a threat of war to influence Iran has been put on the shelf, at least for now.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

It is only a matter of time before the confrontation between the world and Iran 's ruling Mullahs sets off a catastrophic conflagration. The Islamic Republic of Iran, in defiance of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, continues with its dangerous nuclear program, which poses dire consequences for the Iranian people and the world. We call upon the free governments of the world, as well as all other businesses, organizations and individuals to enlist in a non-violent campaign of ending the reign of terror of the belligerent Iranian clerical regime. Governments should enact the following:

* Renounce the use of force for ending the impasse.

* Declare unequivocally the commitment to respect the territorial integrity of Iran, as well as the rights of the Iranians to decide, through a democratic process, all matters pertaining to their life and country.

* Initiate, without delay or equivocation, a comprehensive program of assistance to all democratic Iranian opposition groups, both within as well as outside of Iran, in their struggle to accomplish the regime change themselves.

* Proclaim wide and far, the cardinal reason for taking these measures against the Mullahs' reign of terror is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, the threat they pose to the region as well as to the world, and the stimulus they provide for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

* Enforce the U.N. sanctions by inspecting every vessel headed for Iranian ports to make sure they are not ferrying prohibited material. Other than vessels known to be carrying foodstuff and medicine, each ship should be subjected to elaborate inspection.

* Establish an Iran Assistance Fund, from Iran’s frozen assets as well as contributions from peace-loving individuals and organizations, to assist Iranian families during the hardship that the sanctions may create.

* Persuade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and other Persian Gulf oil producers to significantly increase their output and drastically cut the price. It is what they must do to help forestall the emergence of a nuclear clerical Iran bent on ruling the region.

* Every user of oil, governments, businesses, and individuals must do their share by severely curtailing their use of oil, to offset any shortages that may arise.

* Obtain court orders to freeze the overseas assets of Iranian leaders, since they are clearly ill-begotten funds that rightfully belong to the nation.

* Shut down, or severely restrict the operation of the Mullahs' businesses in Dubai and other Persian Gulf states.

* Deny the Iranian airlines operation and encourage non-Iranian airlines to cease serving the country. Provide for flights that serve emergency medical and other health needs of the Iranians.

* File legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic's wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; for their crimes against humanity, genocidal actions against religious and political groups; for support of international terrorism; for demolition of religious sites and cemeteries; for rape, torture, and summary execution of prisoners of conscience; for forgery of documents, for acts of blackmail and fraud, and much more.

* Declare and treat the clerical regime as illegitimate.

* Stop or slow down Iran's import of refined petroleum products.

* Shut down the Islamic Republic's web sites and block their television and radio broadcasts.

* Seize the regime's front organizations such as the Alavi Foundation in New York City.

* Identify the agents of the Islamic Republic and prosecute them as promoters of international terrorism.

* Investigate individuals and organizations that lobby or front for the Islamic Republic.

* Take all necessary steps to stop investments in Iran. Persuade banks to refrain from dealing with Iran and the issuance of letters of credit.

* Pressure businesses to stop dealing with Iran.

* Pressure governments to stop doing business with Iran. Warn countries such as China and Russia against circumventing the U.N. resolution and engaging in commercial adventurism.

We, the undersigned, are greatly concerned that the confrontational course of the illegitimate clerical regime of Iran may ignite the flame of war. We urge the leadership as well as people of the world to join in the non-violent campaign of dislodging the mullahs and helping Iranians to establish a secular democracy. The Iran problem is both serious and urgent. It is a world problem. A warning to the world governments and others: You need to act now. Apathy is sleep. If you sleep, we will all weep.
Sincerely,

The No Bombs, No Appeasement: Support the People of Iran's Struggle for a Secular, Peaceful Democracy Petition to Free World Elected Officials was created by Free Iran Secular Activists and written by Amil Imani (activistchat@gmail.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

Iran bans foreigners from border province
Tue May 22, 8:03 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070522/wl_mideast_afp/iranafghanistan_070522120313
An Iranian woman carries items on her head in Chagher village in Iran's southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan near the Afghan border in 2002. Iran has banned all Afghan and other foreign nationals from the sensitive province as part of a drive to deport tens of thousands of illegal migrants, a senior police chief has said.(AFP/File/Behrouz Mehri)

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has banned all Afghan and other foreign nationals from a sensitive southeastern border province as part of a drive to deport tens of thousands of illegal migrants, a senior police chief said Tuesday.

"No legal or illegal foreign nationals are allowed to live, work and travel in any cities of Sistan-Baluchestan province, in line with the scheme to deport foreigners," deputy police chief Hossein Zolfaghari told state media.

Zolfaghari said "more than 65,000 illegal foreign citizens have been apprehended in Sistan-Baluchestan province", which borders Afghanistan and Pakistan, since Iran launched the plan to expel illegal immigrants on April 21.

Iran has expelled tens of thousands of Afghans over the past month, mostly from Sistan-Baluchestan, and Interior Minister Mostafa Pour Mohammadi has said Tehran wants one million Afghans to be repatriated by next March.

But Iran has agreed to slow down the process after the speed of the deportations prompted the Afghan parliament to sack two cabinet ministers.

The Iranian interior ministry said it has already repatriated 85,000 illegal Afghans and the United Nations confirmed on Monday more 70,000 had been returned home.

Afghans without proper employment papers are estimated to form half of the two million Afghans, mostly Shiite Hazara or Sunni Persian-speaking Tajiks, who fled the conflict at home and still live in the Islamic republic.

Sistan-Baluchestan is the main narcotics transit route from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the markets of Europe and the Gulf, and a frequent scene of bloody clashes between smugglers and police.

The authorities are also concerned about the emergence of a shadowy Sunni militant group known as Jundallah, which has claimed responsibly of a series of deadly bombings and abductions in the province.

May 24 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said the U.S. and its allies must increase the pressure on Iran for defying United Nations' orders to halt its nuclear program.

``We need to strengthen our sanction regime,'' Bush said at a news conference in Washington, giving no clues on what they might be. ``We will work with our European partners to develop further sanctions,'' and also plans to discuss the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao.

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency told the Security Council yesterday that Iran is defying UN orders to stop its uranium enrichment program, prompting U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to call for tougher sanctions. The IAEA report found Iran is ignoring a UN deadline to stop enrichment.

Chinese and Russian diplomats said that while they are prepared to work with the U.S. and its European allies on a resolution pressing Iran stop enriching uranium, a new track of negotiations is needed.

``You can continue with the process of making up another resolution in the Security Council, but it will not work,'' Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said. ``There should be a new approach, another framework to see if there is common ground where we can reach a solution.''

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said his nation is ``prepared to work in the Security Council in accordance with the previous resolution, which calls for us to discuss further measures, but we need a dual-track approach.'' He added: ``We hope there can be further contacts with the Iranians.''

Ahmadinejad Won't Bend

The U.S. suspects Iran may be trying to enrich uranium for military purposes. Iran, which has the world's second-biggest oil and natural gas reserves, says its nuclear program is intended to expand domestic energy supplies.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said earlier today in Tehran that his country won't bend to Western pressure to stop uranium enrichment.

``The enemies, in preventing us from using peaceful nuclear energy, are targeting the root and the movement'' of the Islamic Republic, Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state television. ``If we stop for a second they will have achieved their aim.''

The nuclear ``path is irreversible,'' Ahmadinejad said in a separate speech today broadcast live from the city of Isfahan.

Possible Sanctions

The U.S. and Britain may seek a mandatory travel ban on Iranian officials involved in the nuclear program, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told the New York Times. The Bush administration also may work outside the UN Security Council for a ban on arms sales and urge European countries to reduce export credits to Iran.

``Iran is thumbing its nose at the international community,'' Burns told the newspaper. ``The Iranians need to know that we're serious about this.''

The Security Council on March 24 urged member nations to reduce the supply, sale or transfer of weapons to Iran and halt any training or financial aid used to get arms. The World Bank should stop giving grants, loans or other financial aid to Iran, save for humanitarian or development purposes, the Council said.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said today that the UN must ``quickly'' adopt new sanctions against Iran, though ``there's still time for Iran to suspend its activities linked with enrichment.''

It is only a matter of time before the confrontation between the world and Iran 's ruling Mullahs sets off a catastrophic conflagration. The Islamic Republic of Iran, in defiance of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, continues with its dangerous nuclear program, which poses dire consequences for the Iranian people and the world. We call upon the free governments of the world, as well as all other businesses, organizations and individuals to enlist in a non-violent campaign of ending the reign of terror of the belligerent Iranian clerical regime. Governments should enact the following:

* Renounce the use of force for ending the impasse.

* Declare unequivocally the commitment to respect the territorial integrity of Iran, as well as the rights of the Iranians to decide, through a democratic process, all matters pertaining to their life and country.

* Initiate, without delay or equivocation, a comprehensive program of assistance to all democratic Iranian opposition groups, both within as well as outside of Iran, in their struggle to accomplish the regime change themselves.

* Proclaim wide and far, the cardinal reason for taking these measures against the Mullahs' reign of terror is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, the threat they pose to the region as well as to the world, and the stimulus they provide for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

* Enforce the U.N. sanctions by inspecting every vessel headed for Iranian ports to make sure they are not ferrying prohibited material. Other than vessels known to be carrying foodstuff and medicine, each ship should be subjected to elaborate inspection.

* Establish an Iran Assistance Fund, from Iran’s frozen assets as well as contributions from peace-loving individuals and organizations, to assist Iranian families during the hardship that the sanctions may create.

* Persuade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and other Persian Gulf oil producers to significantly increase their output and drastically cut the price. It is what they must do to help forestall the emergence of a nuclear clerical Iran bent on ruling the region.

* Every user of oil, governments, businesses, and individuals must do their share by severely curtailing their use of oil, to offset any shortages that may arise.

* Obtain court orders to freeze the overseas assets of Iranian leaders, since they are clearly ill-begotten funds that rightfully belong to the nation.

* Shut down, or severely restrict the operation of the Mullahs' businesses in Dubai and other Persian Gulf states.

* Deny the Iranian airlines operation and encourage non-Iranian airlines to cease serving the country. Provide for flights that serve emergency medical and other health needs of the Iranians.

* File legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic's wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; for their crimes against humanity, genocidal actions against religious and political groups; for support of international terrorism; for demolition of religious sites and cemeteries; for rape, torture, and summary execution of prisoners of conscience; for forgery of documents, for acts of blackmail and fraud, and much more.

* Declare and treat the clerical regime as illegitimate.

* Stop or slow down Iran's import of refined petroleum products.

* Shut down the Islamic Republic's web sites and block their television and radio broadcasts.

* Seize the regime's front organizations such as the Alavi Foundation in New York City.

* Identify the agents of the Islamic Republic and prosecute them as promoters of international terrorism.

* Investigate individuals and organizations that lobby or front for the Islamic Republic.

* Take all necessary steps to stop investments in Iran. Persuade banks to refrain from dealing with Iran and the issuance of letters of credit.

* Pressure businesses to stop dealing with Iran.

* Pressure governments to stop doing business with Iran. Warn countries such as China and Russia against circumventing the U.N. resolution and engaging in commercial adventurism.

We, the undersigned, are greatly concerned that the confrontational course of the illegitimate clerical regime of Iran may ignite the flame of war. We urge the leadership as well as people of the world to join in the non-violent campaign of dislodging the mullahs and helping Iranians to establish a secular democracy. The Iran problem is both serious and urgent. It is a world problem. A warning to the world governments and others: You need to act now. Apathy is sleep. If you sleep, we will all weep.
Sincerely,

The No Bombs, No Appeasement: Support the People of Iran's Struggle for a Secular, Peaceful Democracy Petition to Free World Elected Officials was created by Free Iran Secular Activists and written by Amil Imani (activistchat@gmail.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

President Bush said last week he expects a "bloody" summer in Iraq. What he didn't say is that a growing covert war between the United States and Iran may be one reason the conflict is escalating. U.S. intelligence has identified the principal unit behind Tehran's efforts to supply Shia insurgent cells in Iraq. It is a supersecret group called Department 9000, which is part of the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to three U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reporting and analysis on the Iraqi insurgency who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive material.

Department 9000 acts as a liaison between the insurgents and the IRGC, the Iranian regime's principal internal-security mechanism, providing guidance and support. More recently, says one of the officials, these secret Iranian paramilitaries have even begun to help Sunni insurgent groups in order to keep the Americans bogged down. "The new developments with Sunni groups are more operational in nature and are more direct in terms of their involvement in groups attacking the Coalition," he said.

WASHINGTON - President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday.

The comparison was offered as the Pentagon announced the completion of the troop buildup ordered by Bush in January. The last of about 21,500 combat troops to arrive were an Army brigade in Baghdad and a Marine unit heading into the Anbar province in western Iraq.

This is another big dream, illusion, waste of time and resources by big Oil companies and addicted country to oil without any consideration for the people of the region, human rights ..... As long as there is no regime change in Iran with push for establishing Secular Democracy, free society, human rights in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan ..... we will not see peace and any US plans or policy short of regime change in Iran NOW will fail…. As FREE Iran Activists have predicted correctly before Iraq invasion and Bush Admin did not listen to reasons this plan will fail again …… Bush Admin only listen to their old hidden enemy with hidden agenda like Tony Blair, Iraqi Mafia Islamist and Big Oil lobbyists in Washington ....

"A Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash" examines the state of the world's dwindling oil resources and the issue of peakoil. It finds that we're ... all » running out of fossil fuels much sooner than anticipated. Industry leaders, scientists and some politicians tell us about the dire consequences the world is facing as it moves from cheap abundant energy supply to scarce, hard to get and expensive energy.

Turkish authorities seized weapons hidden among construction materials on a Syria-bound train from Iran after Kurdish guerrillas bombed and derailed the train, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

The cargo was discovered when authorities checked containers on the train, which was attacked by separatist Kurdish guerrillas on May 25 near the town of Genc in southeastern Bingol province, Prosecutor Ismail Sari told reporters.

The incident was being investigated, Sari said, adding that the bomb attack derailed seven of the train's cars, and authorities would also check the cargo on rest of the train, he said.

Earlier Wednesday, a government official said the cargo included machine guns and pistols. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. The private Dogan news agency said the cargo included a rocket launch pad and 300 rockets as well as other weapons and ammunition.

Turkish authorities suspect Iran is using Turkey as a transit point to send arms to Lebanon's Hezbollah movement via Syria.

On Tuesday evening, Turkish authorities forced a Syrian plane flying from Iran to land in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir and searched it for weapons. No arms were found.

Larijani denies claims on confiscation

Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani on Wednesday rejected claims made by media on confiscation in Turkey of a shipment of weapons from Iran.

Larijani told IRNA the media reports on the issue are "incorrect."

In related developments, an informed source told IRNA Tuesday that certain regional circles, acting beyond governments' control, cannot damage amicable ties existing between Tehran and Ankara. Such moves and acts of disinformation are only aimed at tarnishing the existing friendly relations between the two neighboring states,' he added. The source further reiterated that despite such disinformation attempts, the two countries' relations at mutual, regional, and international levels are growing.

The New Anatolian
31 May 2007

YARI NATIONAL GROUP wrote:

ANOTHER PROOF OF ARMS SMUGGLING BY MULLAHS!
What we have been saying all along! As you recall we had reported the "ideal" way Mullah's smuggle arms, explosive and ammo is through "construction materials".

This is the way they bring it to Iraq via Suleymanieh border and other borders. From there, they break shipment and send to other places and various terrorist groups.

Now, ONLY BY ACCIDENT! They have discovered a cache of arms. Guess what? Inside the Construction Materials! This time by Train and in going through Turkey!

How much more proof does the world requires in order to start empowering Iranian people for the regime change?

Dear Nokar Mullah apologist's. Care to defend Mullah's on this? Care to comment? Why all of you become deaf, dumb and blind when these issues surface?

THE PRESIDENT: President Ilves, Foreign Minister Schwarzenberg, distinguished guests: Laura and I are pleased to be back in Prague, and we appreciate the gracious welcome in this historic hall. Tomorrow I attend the G-8 Summit, where I will meet with the leaders of the world's most powerful economies. This afternoon, I stand with men and women who represent an even greater power -- the power of human conscience.

In this room are dissidents and democratic activists from 17 countries on five continents. You follow different traditions, you practice different faiths, and you face different challenges. But you are united by an unwavering conviction: that freedom is the non-negotiable right of every man, woman, and child, and that the path to lasting peace in our world is liberty. (Applause.)

This conference was conceived by three of the great advocates for freedom in our time: Jose Maria Aznar, Vaclav Havel, and Natan Sharansky. I thank them for the invitation to address this inspiring assembly, and for showing the world that an individual with moral clarity and courage can change the course of history.

It is fitting that we meet in the Czech Republic -- a nation at the heart of Europe, and of the struggle for freedom on this continent. Nine decades ago, Tomas Masaryk proclaimed Czechoslovakia's independence based on the "ideals of modern democracy." That democracy was interrupted, first by the Nazis and then by the communists, who seized power in a shameful coup that left the Foreign Minister dead in the courtyard of this palace.

Through the long darkness of Soviet occupation, the true face of this nation was never in doubt. The world saw it in the reforms of the Prague Spring and the principled demands of Charter 77. Those efforts were met with tanks and truncheons and arrests by secret police. But the violent would not have the final word. In 1989, thousands gathered in Wenceslas Square to call for their freedom. Theaters like the Magic Lantern became headquarters for dissidents. Workers left their factories to support a strike. And within weeks, the regime crumbled. Vaclav Havel went from prisoner of state to head of state. And the people of Czechoslovakia brought down the Iron Curtain with a Velvet Revolution.

Across Europe, similar scenes were unfolding. In Poland, a movement that began in a single shipyard freed people across a nation. In Hungary, mourners gathered at Heroes Square to bury a slain reformer -- and bury their communist regime, too. In East Germany, families came together for prayer meetings -- and found the strength to tear down a wall. Soon, activists emerged from the attics and church basements to reclaim the streets of Bulgaria, and Romania, and Albania, and Latvia, and Lithuania, and Estonia. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved peacefully in this very room. And after seven decades of oppression, the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

Behind these astonishing achievements was the triumph of freedom in the battle of ideas. The communists had an imperial ideology that claimed to know the directions of history. But in the end, it was overpowered by ordinary people who wanted to live their lives, and worship their God, and speak the truth to their children. The communists had the harsh rule of Brezhnev, and Honecker, and Ceausescu. But in the end, it was no match for the vision of Walesa and Havel, the defiance of Sakharov and Sharansky, the resolve of Reagan and Thatcher, and fearless witness of John Paul. From this experience, a clear lesson has emerged: Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied.

In the years since liberation, Central and Eastern European nations have navigated the difficult transition to democracy. Leaders made the tough reforms needed to enter NATO and the European Union. Citizens claimed their freedom in the Balkans and beyond. And now, after centuries of war and suffering, the continent of Europe is at last in peace.

With this new era have come new threats to freedom. In dark and repressive corners of the world, whole generations grew up with no voice in their government and no hope in their future. This life of oppression bred deep resentment. And for many, resentment boiled over into radicalism and extremism and violence. The world saw the result on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists based in Afghanistan sent 19 suicidal men to murder nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States.

For some, this attack called for a narrow response. In truth, 9/11 was evidence of a much broader danger -- an international movement of violent Islamic extremists that threatens free people everywhere. The extremists' ambition is to build a totalitarian empire that spans all current and former Muslim lands, including parts of Europe. Their strategy to achieve that goal is to frighten the world into surrender through a ruthless campaign of terrorist murder.

To confront this enemy, America and our allies have taken the offensive with the full range of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement capabilities. Yet this battle is more than a military conflict. Like the Cold War, it's an ideological struggle between two fundamentally different visions of humanity. On one side are the extremists, who promise paradise, but deliver a life of public beatings and repression of women and suicide bombings. On the other side are huge numbers of moderate men and women -- including millions in the Muslim world -- who believe that every human life has dignity and value that no power on Earth can take away.

The most powerful weapon in the struggle against extremism is not bullets or bombs -- it is the universal appeal of freedom. Freedom is the design of our Maker, and the longing of every soul. Freedom is the best way to unleash the creativity and economic potential of a nation. Freedom is the only ordering of a society that leads to justice. And human freedom is the only way to achieve human rights.

Expanding freedom is more than a moral imperative -- it is the only realistic way to protect our people in the long run. Years ago, Andrei Sakharov warned that a country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respond to the rights of its neighbors. History proves him right. Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other. Democracies address problems through the political process, instead of blaming outside scapegoats. Young people who can disagree openly with their leaders are less likely to adopt violent ideologies. And nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support extremists -- they will join in defeating them.

For all these reasons, the United States is committed to the advance of freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. (Applause.) And we have a historic objective in view. In my second inaugural address, I pledged America to the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Some have said that qualifies me as a "dissident president." If standing for liberty in the world makes me a dissident, I wear that title with pride. (Applause.)

America pursues our freedom agenda in many ways -- some vocal and visible, others quiet and hidden from view. Ending tyranny requires support for the forces of conscience that undermine repressive societies from within. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik compared a tyrannical state to a soldier who constantly points a gun at his enemy -- until his arms finally tire and the prisoner escapes. The role of the free world is to put pressure on the arms of the world's tyrants -- and strengthen the prisoners who are trying to speed their collapse.

So I meet personally with dissidents and democratic activists from some of the world's worst dictatorships -- including Belarus, and Burma, and Cuba, and North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. At this conference, I look forward to meeting other dissidents, including some from Iran and Syria. One of those dissidents is Mamoun Homsi. In 2001, this man was an independent member of the Syrian parliament who simply issued a declaration asking the government to begin respecting human rights. For this entirely peaceful act, he was arrested and sent to jail, where he spent several years beside other innocent advocates for a free Syria.

Another dissident I will meet here is Rebiyah Kadeer of China, whose sons have been jailed in what we believe is an act of retaliation for her human rights activities. The talent of men and women like Rebiyah is the greatest resource of their nations, far more valuable than the weapons of their army or their oil under the ground. America calls on every nation that stifles dissent to end its repression, to trust its people, and to grant its citizens the freedom they deserve. (Applause.)

There are many dissidents who couldn't join us because they are being unjustly imprisoned or held under house arrest. I look forward to the day when a conference like this one include Alexander Kozulin of Belarus, Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, Oscar Elias Biscet of Cuba, Father Nguyen Van Ly of Vietnam, Ayman Nour of Egypt. (Applause.) The daughter of one of these political prisoners is in this room. I would like to say to her, and all the families: I thank you for your courage. I pray for your comfort and strength. And I call for the immediate and unconditional release of your loved ones. (Applause.)

In the eyes of America, the democratic dissidents today are the democratic leaders of tomorrow. So we're taking new steps to strengthen our support. We recently created a Human Rights Defenders Fund, which provides grants for the legal defense and medical expenses of activists arrested or beaten by repressive governments. I strongly support the Prague Document that your conference plans to issue, which states that "the protection of human rights is critical to international peace and security." And in keeping with the goals of that declaration, I have asked Secretary Rice to send a directive to every U.S. ambassador in an un-free nation: Seek out and meet with activists for democracy. Seek out those who demand human rights. (Applause.)

People living in tyranny need to know they are not forgotten. North Koreans live in a closed society where dissent is brutally suppressed, and they are cut off from their brothers and sisters to the south. The Iranians are a great people who deserve to chart their own future, but they are denied their liberty by a handful of extremists whose pursuit of nuclear weapons prevents their country from taking its rightful place amongst the thriving. The Cubans are desperate for freedom -- and as that nation enters a period of transition, we must insist on free elections and free speech and free assembly. (Applause.) And in Sudan, freedom is denied and basic human rights are violated by a government that pursues genocide against its own citizens. My message to all those who suffer under tyranny is this: We will never excuse your oppressors. We will always stand for your freedom. (Applause.)

Freedom is also under assault in countries that have shown some progress. In Venezuela, elected leaders have resorted to shallow populism to dismantle democratic institutions and tighten their grip on power. The government of Uzbekistan continues to silence independent voices by jailing human rights activists. And Vietnam recently arrested and imprisoned a number of peaceful religious and political activists.

These developments are discouraging, but there are more reasons for optimism. At the start of the 1980s, there were only 45 democracies on Earth. There are now more than 120 democracies -- more people now live in freedom than ever before. And it is the responsibility of those who enjoy the blessings of liberty to help those who are struggling to establish their free societies. So the United States has nearly doubled funding for democracy projects. We're working with our partners in the G-8 to promote the rise of a vibrant civil society in the Middle East through initiatives like the Forum for the Future. We're cooperating side-by-side with the new democracies in Ukraine and Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. We congratulate the people of Yemen on their landmark presidential election, and the people of Kuwait on elections in which women were able to vote and run for office for the first time. (Applause.) We stand firmly behind the people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq as they defend their democratic gains against extremist enemies. (Applause.) These people are making tremendous sacrifices for liberty. They deserve the admiration of the free world, and they deserve our unwavering support. (Applause.)

The United States is also using our influence to urge valued partners like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to move toward freedom. These nations have taken brave stands and strong action to confront extremists, along with some steps to expand liberty and transparency. Yet they have a great distance still to travel. The United States will continue to press nations like these to open up their political systems, and give greater voice to their people. Inevitably, this creates tension. But our relationships with these countries are broad enough and deep enough to bear it. As our relationships with South Korea and Taiwan during the Cold War prove, America can maintain a friendship and push a nation toward democracy at the same time. (Applause.)

We're also applying that lesson to our relationships with Russia and China. (Applause.) The United States has strong working relationships with these countries. Our friendship with them is complex. In the areas where we share mutual interests, we work together. In other areas, we have strong disagreements. China's leaders believe that they can continue to open the nation's economy without opening its political system. We disagree. (Applause.) In Russia, reforms that were once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development. Part of a good relationship is the ability to talk openly about our disagreements. So the United States will continue to build our relationships with these countries -- and we will do it without abandoning our principles or our values. (Applause.)

We appreciate that free societies take shape at different speeds in different places. One virtue of democracy is that it reflects local history and traditions. Yet there are fundamental elements that all democracies share -- freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly; rule of law enforced by independent courts; private property rights; and political parties that compete in free and fair elections. (Applause.) These rights and institutions are the foundation of human dignity, and as countries find their own path to freedom, they must find a loyal partner in the United States of America.

Extending the reach of freedom is a mission that unites democracies around the world. Some of the greatest contributions are coming from nations with the freshest memories of tyranny. I appreciate the Czech Republic's support for human rights projects in Belarus and Burma and Cuba. I thank Germany, and Poland, and the Czech Republic, and Hungary, and Slovenia, and Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia for contributing to the new United Nations Democracy Fund. I'm grateful for the commitment many new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe are making to Afghanistan and Iraq. I appreciate that these countries are willing to do the hard work necessary to enable people who want to be free to live in a free society. (Applause.)

In all these ways, the freedom agenda is making a difference. The work has been difficult, and that is not going to change. There will be triumphs and failures, progress and setbacks. Ending tyranny cannot be achieved overnight. And of course, this objective has its critics.

Some say that ending tyranny means "imposing our values" on people who do not share them, or that people live in parts of the world where freedom cannot take hold. That is refuted by the fact that every time people are given a choice, they choose freedom. We saw that when the people of Latin America turned dictatorships into democracies, and the people of South Africa replaced apartheid with a free society, and the people of Indonesia ended their long authoritarian rule. We saw it when Ukrainians in orange scarves demanded that their ballots be counted. We saw it when millions of Afghans and Iraqis defied the terrorists to elect free governments. At a polling station in Baghdad, I was struck by the words of an Iraqi -- he had one leg -- and he told a reporter, "I would have crawled here if I had to." Was democracy -- I ask the critics, was democracy imposed on that man? Was freedom a value he did not share? The truth is that the only ones who have to impose their values are the extremists and the radicals and the tyrants. (Applause.)

And that is why the communists crushed the Prague Spring, and threw an innocent playwright in jail, and trembled at the sight of a Polish Pope. History shows that ultimately, freedom conquers fear. And given a chance, freedom will conquer fear in every nation on Earth. (Applause.)

Another objective -- objection is that ending tyranny will unleash chaos. Critics point to the violence in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Lebanon as evidence that freedom leaves people less safe. But look who's causing the violence. It's the terrorists, it's the extremists. It is no coincidence that they are targeting young democracies in the Middle East. They know that the success of free societies there is a mortal threat to their ambitions -- and to their very survival. The fact that our enemies are fighting back is not a reason to doubt democracy. It is evidence that they recognize democracy's power. It is evidence that we are at war. And it is evidence that free nations must do what it takes to prevail. (Applause.)

Still, some argue that a safer goal would be stability, especially in the Middle East. The problem is that pursuing stability at the expense of liberty does not lead to peace -- it leads to September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.) The policy of tolerating tyranny is a moral and strategic failure. It is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Others fear that democracy will bring dangerous forces to power, such as Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. Elections will not always turn out the way we hope. Yet democracy consists of more than a single trip to the ballot box. Democracy requires meaningful opposition parties, a vibrant civil society, a government that enforces the law and responds to the needs of its people. Elections can accelerate the creation of such institutions. In a democracy, people will not vote for a life of perpetual violence. To stay in power, elected officials must listen to their people and pursue their desires for peace -- or, in democracies, the voters will replace them through free elections.

Finally, there's the contention that ending tyranny is unrealistic. Well, some argue that extending democracy around the world is simply too difficult to achieve. That's nothing new. We've heard that criticism before throughout history. At every stage of the Cold War, there were those who argued that the Berlin Wall was permanent, and that people behind the Iron Curtain would never overcome their oppressors. History has sent a different message.

The lesson is that freedom will always have its skeptics. But that's not the whole story. There are also people like you, and the loved ones you represent -- men and women with courage to risk everything for your ideals. In his first address as President, Vaclav Havel proclaimed, "People, your government has returned to you!" He was echoing the first speech of Tomas Masaryk -- who was, in turn, quoting the 17th century Czech teacher Comenius. His message was that freedom is timeless. It does not belong to one government or one generation. Freedom is the dream and the right of every person in every nation in every age. (Applause.)

The United States of America believes deeply in that message. It was the inspiration for our founding, when we declared that "all men are created equal." It was the conviction that led us to help liberate this continent, and stand with the captive nations through their long struggle. It is the truth that guides our nation to oppose radicals and extremists and terror and tyranny in the world today. And it is the reason I have such great confidence in the men and women in this room.

I leave Prague with a certainty that the cause of freedom is not tired, and that its future is in the best of hands. With unbreakable faith in the power of liberty, you will inspire your people, you will lead your nations, and you will change the world.

President Bush Discusses United States International Development Agenda
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.

Video (Windows)
Presidential Remarks
Audio

Fact Sheet: Commitment to International Development

10:07 A.M. EDT

MRS. BUSH: Thank you, George, for that kind introduction. Thanks to the United States Global Leadership Council for hosting us this morning. Next week, leaders from around the world will gather in Germany to advance goals shared by people of every nation: economic empowerment, education, and good health.

The eagerness of children to learn, the desire of individuals to provide for themselves and their families, and the longing of mothers to see their babies grow up healthy are universal. Yet poverty, a lack of education, and disease have kept millions from around the world from fulfilling these fundamental desires. Today the governments and citizens of many countries are working to overcome these crises. And the American people are proud to stand with them.

Through our government, the American people have given billions of dollars to lift the burdens of crushing debt, illiteracy, malaria and HIV/AIDS. At the end of June, I'll travel to the African nations of Senegal, Mozambique, Zambia and Mali to see the results -- some of these results firsthand. I'll visit homes protected by mosquito sprays, and go to clinics supported by the President's Malaria Initiative. There, volunteers distribute mosquito nets so that mothers can sleep knowing that their babies are safe.

I'll visit a pediatric hospital supported by the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, where doctors and nurses care for thousands of HIV-positive babies. I'll see new wells installed by the Play Pumps Alliance, which will provide as many as 10 million Africans with clean water. And I'll visit schools supported by our government's African Education Initiative. By supplying textbooks and training hundreds of thousands of teachers, the African Education Initiative gives African children hope for security, prosperity and good health.

These are just some of the things our government is doing around the world that Americans should be proud of. Through our development initiatives, we're helping to build free economies, teach children how to read, and save the lives of millions of men and women -- women like Kunene Tantoh. I first met Kunene two years ago when I visited a Mothers to Mothers center in South Africa. At Mothers centers, which receive PEPFAR seed money, HIV-infected women receive information and support to keep their unborn babies HIV free. When Kunene first arrived at the Mothers clinic, she had just discovered she was pregnant -- and HIV positive. A normal CD4 count, which measures a person's immune cells, is between 500 and 1,500. Kunene's count was 2. It seemed unlikely that she would survive.

But with the treatment Kunene received at the Mothers clinic, she did survive, and delivered a beautiful boy named Baron. He's HIV free. Kunene became a mentor to other mothers, and now she serves as a site coordinator at the largest Mothers facility. Today she and Baron stand as a symbol of hope to everyone living positively with HIV. Kunene and Baron. (Applause.) Kunene also represents the many lives that have been touched and saved by the compassion of the American people.

Now I'm proud to introduce a man of extraordinary compassion. Ladies and gentlemen, my husband, President George W. Bush. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Laura, thanks for that short introduction. (Laughter.) I'm proud to be introduced by my wife. I love her dearly. She's a great First Lady. (Applause.)

And I appreciate the chance to address the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign. This is a fine organization and it's an important organization. It's rallying businesses and non-governmental organizations and faith-based and community and civic organizations across our country to advance a noble cause, ensuring that the United States leads the world in spreading hope and opportunity. It's a big deal, and I appreciate your participation.

It's a big deal because your efforts are needed. Millions suffer from hunger and poverty and disease in this world of ours. Many nations lack the capacity to meet the overwhelming needs of their people. Alleviating this suffering requires bold action from America. It requires America's leadership and requires the action of developed nations, as well.

That's the message I'm going to take with me to Europe next week, when Laura and I go to the G8. At that meeting I will discuss our common responsibility to help struggling nations grow strong and improve the lives of their citizens. And today I'm going to describe some of the initiatives that I will be discussing with world leaders next week to help developing nations build a better future for their people.

Before I do so, I want to thank George Ingram, the President of the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign. I thank the members of my Cabinet who share the same passion I do for helping those less fortunate around the world -- that would include Carlos Gutierrez, Department of Commerce; Secretary Mike Leavitt, Department of Health and Human Services; Secretary Sam Bodman at the Department of Energy; Administrator Steve Johnson of the EPA. Thank you all for coming. Proud to be serving with you.

I am glad that the Acting Director of the U.S. Foreign Assistance and Acting Administrator of USAID is here, Henrietta Fore. Thanks for coming. I appreciate John Danilovich, who is the head of the Millennium Challenge Corporation; Rob Mosbacher, the head of OPIC. I appreciate other members of my administration who joined us today.

I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here today. I thank the members of the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign.

We are a compassionate nation. When Americans see suffering and know that our country can help stop it, they expect our government to respond. I believe in the timeless truth, and so do a lot of other Americans, to whom much is given, much is required. We're blessed to live in this country. We're blessed to live in the world's most prosperous nation. And I believe we have a special responsibility to help those who are not as blessed. It is the call to share our prosperity with others, and to reach out to brothers and sisters in need.

We help the least fortunate across the world because our conscience demands it. We also recognize that helping struggling nations succeed is in our interest. When America helps lift societies out of poverty we create new markets for goods and services, and new jobs for American workers. Prosperity abroad can be translated to jobs here at home. It's in our interest that we help improve the economies of nations around the world.

When America helps reduce chaos and suffering, we make this country safer, because prosperous nations are less likely to feed resentment and breed violence and export terror. Helping poor nations find the path to success benefits this economy and our security, and it makes us a better country. It helps lift our soul and renews our spirit.

So America is pursuing a clear strategy to bring progress and prosperity to struggling nations all across the world. We're working to increase access to trade and relieve the burden of debt. We're increasing our assistance to the world's poorest countries and using this aid to encourage reform, and strengthen education, and fight the scourge of disease. We'll work with developing nations to find ways to address their energy needs and the challenge of global climate change.

Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires opening new opportunities for trade. Trade is the best way to help poor countries develop their economies and improve the lives of their people. When I took office, America had free trade agreements with three countries. Today we have free trade agreements in force with 14 countries, most of which are in the developing world. Three weeks ago, my administration and Congress agreed on a new trade policy that will be applied to free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. And I look forward to working with Congress to get all these trade bills passed. These bills are good for our economy.

But it's important for members of Congress and the people of this country to understand free trade is the best way to lift people out of poverty. And so the United States also seeks to open markets to the Doha round of trade negotiations. Doha represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to help millions in the developing world rise from poverty and despair. If you're interested in helping the poor people, you ought to be for trade and opening up markets for their goods and services. And the Doha round gives us an opportunity to do just that.

We put forward bold proposals to help conclude a successful Doha round. And at the G8 summit next week, I'm going to urge other nations to do the same. A successful Doha round will benefit all our countries and it's going to transform the world.

I know that trade can transform lives, I've seen it firsthand. Laura and I were recently in Guatemala. We went to a small village and saw what can happen when markets are open for local entrepreneurs. In this case, we met some farmers who for years had struggled to survive, worked hard just to put food on the table for their families by growing corn and beans. That's all they were able to do. It's a hard way to make a living, growing corn and beans. When we negotiated the trade agreement called the CAFTA DR, which opened up new markets for Guatemalan farmers, the entrepreneurial spirit came forth. There are entrepreneurs all over the world, if just given a chance, they can succeed.

Today, the farmers in that village are growing high-value crops, because they have new markets in which to sell their product. The business we met -- the entrepreneur we met now employs a thousand people. Trade will improve lives a lot faster than government aid can. It's in our interest that we open up markets, for our products, and for the products of others. People just want to be given a chance. And the United States will take the lead in making sure those markets are open for people to be able to realize a better life.

Building progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires lifting the burden of debt from the poorest countries. That makes sense. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to figure out, if you're paying a lot of money on interest, you're not having enough money to support your own people. In the past, many poor nations borrowed money, and they couldn't repay the debt. And their interest payments were huge. And, therefore, they didn't have the opportunity to invest in education and health care. So the administration, my administration worked with G8 nations to ease the debt burden. We're not the first administration to figure this out. My predecessor did the same thing, because it's the right policy for the United States of America.

Two years ago at Gleneagles, the G8 nations agreed to support a multilateral debt relief agreement that freed poor countries of up to $60 billion in debt. This year, we built on that progress, when the Inter-American Development Bank approved another debt relief initiative for some of the poorest nations in our neighborhood, in our own hemisphere. This initiative will cancel $3.4 billion owed by five countries: Bolivia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua. And that represents more than 12 percent of their combined GDP, an average of nearly $110 for every man, woman, and child in these countries. And this money is now free to help these nations invest in improving their lives of citizens. It makes sense to forgive debt. If you're interested in helping the poor, it makes sense for the developed world to forgive the debt. And that's what the United States will continue to do.

Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires increased American assistance to countries most in need. Since I took office, we have more than doubled U.S. development spending across the world -- from about $10 billion in 2000, to $23 billion in 2006. It's the largest increase in development assistance since the Marshall Plan.

The first four years of my administration, we doubled our assistance to Africa. At the G8 summit in 2005, I promised our assistance to Africa would double once again by 2010. I made a promise to the people. People expect us to deliver on that promise, and I expect the Congress to help. We must not shortchange these efforts. Congress needs to approve my full funding request for development assistance this year. We need to get the job done. (Applause.)

We're focusing increased American assistance for developing nations on three key goals -- in other words, we have some goals, we're not just going to spend money. We have a reason to spend the money and we expect there to be results when we spend that money -- so do the taxpayers of this country. It's one thing to be compassionate, it's another thing to be accountable for the money.

First, we're going to use our aid to help developing countries build democratic and accountable institutions and strengthen their civil societies. To succeed in the global economy, nations need fair and transparent legal systems; need free markets that unleash the creativity of their citizens; need banking systems that serve people at all income levels; and a business climate that welcomes foreign investment and supports local entrepreneurs.

The United States is helping developing nations build these and other free institutions through what we call the Millennium Challenge Account. Under this program, America makes a compact with developing nations. We give aid, and in return they agree to implement democratic reforms, to fight corruption, to invest in their people -- particularly in health and education -- and to promote economic freedom. Seems like a fair deal, doesn't it -- taxpayers' money from the United States in return for the habits and procedures necessary for a solid society to develop. We don't want to give aid to a country where the leaders steal the money. We expect there to be accountability for U.S. money and that's the principle behind the Millennium Challenge Account. Eleven nations have compacts in place worth nearly $3 billion. And now 14 additional nations are eligible to negotiate compacts with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, headed by Ambassador Danilovich.

Let me give you an example of how this program can make a difference. In Madagascar the leaders of this island nation set a goal in their compact to improve agricultural production. In other words, we work with a nation, they have set the goal; we support their goal. They want their farmers to be able to compete in the global marketplace. We agreed to help by investing in agricultural business centers that work with local farmers. In one village, this initiative helped a group of farmers who were surviving by collecting firewood and producing charcoal. That's how these folks were trying to get ahead. They'd find firewood and make charcoal out of it, and hope they could find a market. It's a tough way to make a living in a modern world.

The business center that the compact established helped the farmers work together to identify a new product, a natural oil used in skin care products. I probably could use some of that myself. (Laughter.) The center helped these farmers develop -- helped them to develop a business plan. They acquired financing to set up a distilling plant. They built relationships with buyers in their nation's capital.

Before America and Madagascar signed our compact, a typical farmer in this village could earn about $5 a week selling charcoal. After two months of bringing the new product to the market, the livelihood of these farmers increased. One farmer was able to raise his income enough to save about $500, money he plans to use for a child's education.

We're going to help encourage African entrepreneurs in other ways, as well. Today, I'm announcing a new project called Africa Financial Sector Initiative. Through this initiative, we'll provide technical assistance to help African nations strengthen their financial markets. The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corps, OPIC, headed by Rob Mosbacher, will work with the financial community to create several new private equity funds that will mobilize up to a billion dollars of additional private investment in Africa.

If you're interested in job creation, there's got to be capital available. It's in our interest that we help provide capital to African entrepreneurs. We want them to find access to capital, and we want them to have access to markets because we want to improve their lives. And when people's lives in countries on the continent of Africa improve, it helps the United States of America. It's what our taxpayers have got to understand. It's in our interest. (Applause.)

All of this will go for naught if people don't have a good education. So the second way we're using our aid is to improve education so that the young in the developing world have the tools they need to realize their God-given potential. Many parents across the world either have no access to education for their children, or simply cannot afford it. It's a fact of life, something the world needs to deal with, particularly those of us who have got some money.

In many nations, girls have even less educational opportunity. It robs them of a chance to satisfy their ambitions or to make use of their talents and skills, and it's really sad, when you think about it. It really is. The question is, does the United States care? Should we do something about it? And the answer is, absolutely. If boys and girls in Africa and other developing nations don't learn how to read, write, and add and subtract, this world is just going to move on without them. And all the aid efforts we'll be trying will go to naught, in my judgment.

And so in 2002, I launched the African Education Initiative to help address the great need. Through this initiative, we have provided about $300 million to expand educational opportunities throughout the continent, and we're going to provide another $300 million by 2010. We will have doubled our commitment. (Applause.)

One young woman who has benefited from this program is a woman named Evelyn Nkadori, from the Masai people of the grasslands of Kenya. In her rural community, girls are rarely offered an education -- just never given a chance. They're expected to care for younger children until they're married themselves at an early age. That was the custom. She had a different vision for her future, and our initiative helped her realize it. Our program helped her complete high school, and now she's attending Chicago State University on a scholarship. She's one of the first -- she is one of the first women from her village ever to receive a college education. She hopes to attend medical school, and then go home and help others.

Evelyn, I appreciate you being here today. I'm honored by your presence. Thank you for your courage. We can't make you want to succeed, but we can help you succeed. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)

And we need to do more, for not only children on the continent of Africa, but poor children throughout the world. And so I'm calling on Congress to fund $525 million over the next five years to make our educational initiatives even more robust. And the goal is to provide basic education for 4 million additional children on the continent of Africa and across the globe.

We've got another interesting idea, and that is to establish new Communities of Opportunity centers in poor nations to provide skills and language training for 100,000 at-risk youth; giving these young people in these countries the skills they need to succeed, we're going to give them keys to a brighter future.

The third way we're using our aid is to fight the scourge of disease in Africa and other parts of the developing world. Epidemics like HIV/AIDS and malaria destroy lives and they decimate families. They also impose a crippling economic burden on societies where so many are struggling to lift their families out of poverty. We've taken action to fight these diseases. We've done so because it's in our nation's interest to do so.

In 2003, my administration launched a new initiative to combat HIV/AIDS -- the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. We pledged $15 billion over five years for AIDS prevention and treatment and care programs in many of the poorest nations on Earth. This level of support was unprecedented. I'm proud to report, on behalf of our citizens, that it remains the largest commitment by any nation ever to combat a single disease. (Applause.)

And the program is working. Three years ago, about 50,000 people on the continent of Africa were receiving antiretroviral drugs for help. Today, over 1.1 million people are receiving lifesaving drugs. And this is a good start. It's a necessary start, and it's a promising start; but we need to do more. So yesterday in the Rose Garden, Kunene and Baron and the good Doc -- and I don't know where the Bishop is -- (laughter) -- anyway, they were standing with me up there when I called on Congress to greatly expand our efforts in the fight against HIV/AIDS, by doubling our initial commitment, by dedicating an additional $30 billion to this struggle over the next five years in the year 2009. (Applause.)

And here's the goal: support treatment for nearly 2.5 million people, to prevent more than 12 million new infections, and to provide compassionate care for 12 million people, including 5 million more orphans and vulnerable children. We set the goal for the past initiative, and we met it. And we're going to set the goal for this one, and we're going to meet it. But Congress needs to get that money as quickly as possible so it makes it easier to meet the goal. I proposed this unprecedented investment for a reason -- it's in the world's interest and our nation's interest to save lives. And that's exactly what this program is doing.

We saved a life of a fellow named Robert Ongole. He's with us today. John Robert Ongole -- not yet, not yet, John Robert. (Laughter.) I'm going to make it a little more dramatic than that. (Laughter.) You probably didn't know who I was talking about when is skipped the "John." (Laughter.)

John Robert has a family of two children; he has HIV/AIDS. This disease ravaged his body. His weight dropped to 99 pounds. He developed tuberculosis and other health problems. He and his family felt certain that he would die. Then John Robert began receiving antiretroviral treatment through PEPFAR in Uganda. The treatment restored his strength. He returned to the classroom and he continued being a dad.

John Robert is earning his bachelor's degree in education. He's volunteering to help other people. The American people need to hear what he had to say: "When you talk of PEPFAR, that's my life, because it worked. Because without it, I couldn't have lived. Now I want to save the lives of other people." Thanks for coming, John Robert. (Applause.)

Does it matter to America if John Robert lives? You bet it does. That's why this initiative is an important initiative. That's why it's important Congress continue to spend taxpayers' money to save lives like John Robert's, and Kunene's, and Baron's.

As we increase our commitment to fight HIV/AIDS, we're also continuing an unprecedented commitment to fight against malaria. Malaria takes the lives of about 1 million people a year in the developing world, and the vast majority are under five years old. In some countries, this disease takes even more lives than HIV/AIDS. Every 30 seconds, a mother in Africa loses her child to malaria. It's a tragic disease because it's preventable and treatable. We can do something about it.

In 2005, I announced the President's Malaria Initiative. Through this initiative, we're spending $1.2 billion over five years to fight the disease in 15 targeted African countries. This initiative provides insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor spraying, and life-saving anti-malaria medications. This strategy works. It really isn't all that complicated. It takes money and organization and effort.

In Angola, this initiative helped increase the number of children protected by nets from less than 5 percent to nearly 70 percent. You buy the nets, you educate the people, you get the nets to them, and when they start using them, lives are saved. This initiative has expanded malaria protection for more than 6 million Africans in its first year, and by the end of the second year, in 2007, we expect to reach a total of 30 million people. (Applause.)

At the G8 summit, I'm going to urge our partners to join us in this unprecedented effort to fight these dreaded diseases. America is proud to take the lead. We expect others to join us, as well. If you want to help improve lives on the continent of Africa, and around the world, join with the United States and provide substantial help to fight HIV/AIDS and malaria.

Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires growing amounts of energy. It's hard to grow your economy if you don't have energy. Yet, producing that energy can create environmental challenges for the world. We need to harness the power of technology to help nations meet their growing energy needs while protecting the environment and addressing the challenge of global climate change.

In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

In addition to this long-term global goal, each country would establish midterm national targets, and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs. Over the course of the next 18 months, our nations would bring together industry leaders from different sectors of our economies, such as power generation and alternative fuels and transportation. These leaders will form working groups that will cooperate on ways to share clean energy technology and best practices.

It's important to ensure that we get results, and so we will create a strong and transparent system for measuring each country's performance. This new framework would help our nations fulfill our responsibilities under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States will work with all nations that are part of this convention to adapt to the impacts of climate change, gain access to clean and more energy-efficient technologies, and promote sustainable forestry and agriculture.

The way to meet this challenge of energy and global climate change is through technology, and the United States is in the lead. The world is on the verge of great breakthroughs that will help us become better stewards of the environment. Over the past six years, my administration has spent, along with the Congress, more than $12 billion in research on clean energy technology. We're the world's leader when it comes to figuring out new ways to power our economy and be good stewards of the environment.

We're investing in new technologies to produce electricity in cleaner ways, including solar and wind energy, clean coal technologies. If we can get a breakthrough in clean coal technologies, it's going to help the developing world immeasurably, and at the same time, help protect our environment.

We're spending a lot of money on clean, safe nuclear power. If you're truly interested in cleaning up the environment, or interested in renewable sources of energy, the best way to do so is through safe nuclear power. We're investing in new technologies that transform the way we fuel our cars and trucks. We're expanding the use of hybrid and clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel.

We're spending a lot of your money in figuring out ways to produce ethanol from products other than corn. One of these days, we'll be making fuel to power our automobiles from wood chips, to switchgrasses, to agricultural wastes. I think it makes sense to have our farmers growing energy, so that we don't have to import it from parts of the world where they may not like us too much. And it's good for our environment, as well.

We're pressing on with battery research for plug-in hybrid vehicles that can be powered by electricity from a wall socket, instead of gasoline. We're continuing to research and to advance hydrogen-powered vehicles that emit pure water instead of exhaust fumes; we're taking steps to make sure these technologies reach the market, setting new mandatory fuel standards that require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by the year 2017. It's a mandatory fuel standard. We want to reduce our gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years, which will not only help our national security, it will make us better stewards of the environment. The United States is taking the lead, and that's the message I'm going to take to the G8.

Last week, the Department of Energy announced that in 2006, our carbon emissions decreased by 1.3 percent while our economy grew by 3.3 percent. This experience shows that a strong and growing economy can deliver both a better life for its people and a cleaner environment at the same time.

At the G8 summit, I'm going to encourage world leaders to increase their own investments in research and development. I'm looking forward to working with them. I'm looking forward to discussing ways to encourage more investment in developing nations by making low-cost financing options for clean energy a priority of the international development banks.

We're also going to work to conclude talks with other nations on eliminating tariffs and other barriers to clean energy technologies and services by the end of year. If you are truly committed to helping the environment, nations need to get rid of their tariffs, need to get rid of those barriers that prevent new technologies from coming into their countries. We'll help the world's poorest nations reduce emissions by giving them government-developed technologies at low cost, or in some case, no cost at all.

We have an historic opportunity in the world to extend prosperity to regions that have only known poverty and despair. The United States is in the lead, and we're going to stay in the lead.

The initiatives I've discussed today are making a difference in the lives of millions; our fellow citizens have got to understand that. We're talking about improving lives in a real, tangible way that ought to make our country proud. That's why we've asked these folks to come. It's one thing for the President to be talking about stories; it's another thing for the people to see firsthand what our help has done.

I'm so proud of the United States of America. This initiative shows the good character and the decency of the American people. We are a decent people. We feel responsible for helping those who are less fortunate. And I am proud to be the President of such a good nation. Thanks for coming, and God bless. (Applause.)

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: Should Not Judge Free World Elected Officials by Their Word

Should Not Judge Free World Elected Officials by Their Words
but by their real hard and difficult choices, actions, and great sacrifices ...

Oppenheimer wrote:

Dear Cyrus, Ever wonder why it is that the mullahs seem to be getting caught in the act more and more?
What did Croker tell them? You still think this is about appeasement?

EJ

Dear Oppenheimer,

Due to the fact that as FREE Iran Activist I don’t know the content of Croker private meeting with the Islamist Mafia Terror Masters Occupiers of Iran therefore I can not comment on it.

Cyrus 1993 wrote:

Unfortunately Machiavelli is considered to be one of the principal founders of modern political thought. In chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared: "The reply is that one ought to be both feared and loved, but...it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting ...for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purposes, but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." Often, the most denunciation came from those who practiced what Machiavelli preached- a hypocrisy of which Machiavelli might approve, in principle! Therefore we should not judge politicians by their words but by their hard and difficult choices, actions, and great sacrifices.

President Bush / Republicans are not evaluated based on their speeches, promises and words, they will be evaluated based on their real actions regarding Regime Change in Iran and replacing it with Free Society, Secular Democracy, Human Rights and sending Mafia Mullahs in Iran to International criminal courts …. As long as these things have not happened any of their good speeches are becoming irrelevant. ….
Regards,
Cyrus

If it results you seek Cyrus, I'm not altogether convinced that lumping the world's leaders together in a Machiavellian box is the best way to go about achieving them.

Essentially it is the right of the Iranian people to change their leadership, yet your statement implies that it is soly the responsibility of other nations to change the regime.

I do not believe that it can be done unless the people themselves have instigated regime change, Iranian style.

I would say at that point, it would pose the necessity for international forces to come into Iran in order to properly secure the Mullahs WMD programs, lest they be given to terrorist groups.

If the international community were going to provide some kind of transitional safety net for the Iranian people , don't you think it would require the same general spirit of cooperation among world leaders as we've been witness to with unanimous UN resolutions and sanctions being employed?

Well, seems we now have just such a mechanism in place should the Iranian people excercise the free will they were born with.

We are expecting to deliver good results based on Bush Admin statements in past 6 years. They know far better than us what are their real options if they wish to be truthful towards their statements and what they have promised to Iranian people ..... The following statements are not mine ......

To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe. The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the ``town square test'': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a ``fear society'' has finally won their freedom.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice departs Andrews Air Force Base, Md., on her first trip as Secretary of State to Europe and the Middle East, Thursday, Feb 3, 2005. (AP Photo/ Jacqueline Malonson )
LONDON -- Iran's approach to human rights and its treatment of its own citizens is loathsome, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. While saying Iranians deserve better leaders than "unelected mullahs," America's new chief diplomat stopped short of demanding their ouster.

"I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people and for the region," Rice said en route to London, her first stop. Her itinerary includes visits to Jerusalem and the West Bank to encourage peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"It should just remind us all that those of us who had the good fortune to live on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to those who are left on the other side of freedom's divide to try to achieve their aspirations," Rice said.

cyrus wrote:

Time is Running Out: Where Is The Real Support for a Free Iran from the Bush Administration?

1) "And secondly, I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran. They need to know America stands squarely by their side. And I would urge the Iranian administration to treat them with the utmost of respect. "

2) President Bush Praises Iranian Pro-Democracy Protestors KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (Reuters) - President Bush on Sunday praised pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, calling their protests a positive step toward freedom.
"This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran which I think is positive," President Bush said.

"I think that freedom is a powerful incentive," Bush told reporters after he attended church services during a weekend visit to Kennebunkport. "I believe that some day freedom will prevail everywhere because freedom is a powerful drive."

3) Remarks by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice at Town Hall Los Angeles June 12, 2003
"And so for the United States we have to stand with the aspirations of the Iranian people, which have been clearly expressed."

4) Remarks by the President Bush May 9, 2003 "And in Iran, the desire for freedom is stirring. In the face of harsh repression, Iranians are courageously speaking out for democracy and the rule of law and human rights. And the United States strongly supports their aspirations for freedom. "(Applause.)

5) President Bush State of the Union January 28, 2003 "Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. "(Applause.)

"The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy,"

Reuters - World News
Nov 6, 2003

WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday challenged Iran and Syria and even key U.S. ally Egypt to adopt democracy and broke with past U.S. policy by vowing Washington will not support Arab states that reject liberty.

"The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy," Bush said in a sweeping foreign policy speech. He said Syrian leaders as well as those ousted in Iraq had promised a restoration of ancient glories but instead left "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin."

Of Egypt, whose president, Hosni Mubarak, has been a vital Middle East interlocutor for successive U.S. presidents, Bush said: "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."

The speech was Bush's latest attempt to justify the war in Iraq as necessary to foster democracy in the region at a time when he is under fire for mounting U.S. troop casualties and as anti-Americanism spreads among many Muslims who feel Islam is under attack.

Bush declared a failure of past U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.

He called for democracy throughout the Middle East, praising the tentative steps that are taking places in such nations as Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia, whose royal family is firmly in command.

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it," Bush said.

Statement by the PresidentFebruary 24, 2004
The White House
President Gerge W. Bush

I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran. The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech -- including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers -- in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders.

The United States supports the Iranian people's aspirations to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights, and determine their own destiny.

Statement by the President
March 03, 2004
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

"Our future also depends on America's leadership in this world. The momentum of freedom in our time is strong, but we still face serious dangers. Al Qaeda is wounded, but not broken. Terrorists are testing our will in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regimes of North Korea and Iran are challenging the peace. If America shows weakness and uncertainty in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1548

Iran is making a mistake that may lead the Middle East into a broader conflict.

Several conflicts of various intensities are raging in the Middle East. But a bigger war, involving more states--Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority and perhaps the United States and others--is growing more likely every day, beckoned by the sense that America and Israel are in retreat and that radical Islam is ascending.

Consider the pell-mell events of recent weeks. Iran imprisons four Americans on absurd charges only weeks after seizing 15 British sailors on the high seas. Iran's Revolutionary Guard is caught delivering weapons to the Taliban and explosives to Iraqi terrorists. A car bomb in Lebanon is used to assassinate parliament member Walid Eido, killing nine others and wounding 11 more.

At the same time, Fatah al-Islam, a shady group linked to Syria, launches an attack on the Lebanese army from within a Palestinian refugee area, beheading several soldiers. Tehran trumpets further progress on nuclear enrichment as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeats his call for annihilating Israel, crowing that "the countdown to the destruction of this regime has begun." Hamas seizes control militarily in Gaza. Katyusha rockets are launched from Lebanon into northern Israel for the first time since the end of last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war.

Two important inferences can be distilled from this list. One is that the Tehran regime takes its slogan, "death to America," quite seriously, even if we do not. It is arming the Taliban, with which it was at sword's point when the Taliban were in power. It seems to be supplying explosives not only to Shiite, but also Sunni terrorists in Iraq. It reportedly is sheltering high-level al Qaeda figures despite the Sunni-Shiite divide. All of these surprising actions are for the sake of bleeding the U.S. However hateful this behavior may be to us, it has a certain strategic logic: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

What is even more worrisome about the events enumerated above is that most of them are devoid of any such strategic logic. For example, the Hamas "putsch" in Gaza--as Marwan Barghouti, the hero of the Palestinian intifada, labeled it from his prison cell--was an enormous blunder.
Hamas already mostly controlled Gaza. It is hard to imagine what gains it can reap from its "victory." But it is easy to see the losses. Fatah, and the government of its leader Mahmoud Abbas, will be able to restore their strength in the West Bank with the eager assistance of virtually the whole outside world, while Gaza will be shut off and denied outside aid far more strictly than during the past year. Israel will retaliate against shelling with a freer hand. Egypt will tighten its border. And Hamas has in one swoop negated its own supreme achievement, namely winning a majority in Palestine's 2006 parliamentary elections. Until now, Hamas had a powerful argument: how can the West demand democracy and then boycott the winners? But now it is Hamas itself that has destroyed Palestinian democracy by staging an armed coup. Its democratic credentials have gone up in the smoke of its own arson.

Syria's actions in Lebanon scarcely make more sense. The murder of parliamentarian Eido will solidify and energize the majority that opposes Syria. Some suppose that, having now bumped off two Lebanese MPs (Pierre Gemayel was the other one), Syria plans to shave away the anti-Syrian majority in Lebanon's parliament by committing another five murders. But if so, this is a crazy gambit. Such a campaign would invite international intervention. It might well fracture the pro-Syrian forces: More Shiites will abandon Hezbollah and more Maronites will turn against Hezbollah's cat's-paw, Michel Aoun. And the murders might be for naught anyway: By-elections are already being planned that are likely to replace the martyred legislators with others of the same mind. As for the attack on the Lebanese army, Fatah al-Islam is on the brink of being crushed, leaving behind only more hatred of Syria and a better-armed, more confident Lebanese army.

As for Iran's actions, while arming the Taliban and Iraqi terrorists may make sense, what is the point of seizing British sailors or locking up the four Iranian-Americans, including the beloved 67-year-old scholar, Haleh Esfandieri, none of whom are involved even in political activity, much less in the exercise of hard power?

The apparent meaning of all of this pointless provocation and bullying is that the axis of radicals--Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah--is feeling its oats. In part its aim is to intimidate the rest of us, in part it is merely enjoying flexing its muscles. It believes that its side has defeated America in Iraq, and Israel in Gaza and Lebanon. Mr. Ahmadinejad recently claimed that the West has already begun to "surrender," and he gloated that " final victory . . . is near." It is this bravado that bodes war.

A large portion of modern wars erupted because aggressive tyrannies believed that their democratic opponents were soft and weak. Often democracies have fed such beliefs by their own flaccid behavior. Hitler's contempt for America, stoked by the policy of appeasement, is a familiar story. But there are many others. North Korea invaded South Korea after Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that Korea lay beyond our "defense perimeter." Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after our ambassador assured him that America does not intervene in quarrels among Arabs. Imperial Germany launched World War I, encouraged by Great Britain's open reluctance to get involved. Nasser brought on the 1967 Six Day War, thinking that he could extort some concessions from Israel by rattling his sword.

Democracies, it is now well established, do not go to war with each other. But they often get into wars with non-democracies. Overwhelmingly the non-democracy starts the war; nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases, it is the democratic side that wins. In other words, dictators consistently underestimate the strength of democracies, and democracies provoke war through their love of peace, which the dictators mistake for weakness.

Today, this same dynamic is creating a moment of great danger. The radicals are becoming reckless, asserting themselves for little reason beyond the conviction that they can. They are very likely to overreach. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which a single match--say a terrible terror attack from Gaza--could ignite a chain reaction. Israel could handle Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, albeit with painful losses all around, but if Iran intervened rather than see its regional assets eliminated, could the U.S. stay out?
With the Bush administration's policies having failed to pacify Iraq, it is natural that the public has lost patience and that the opposition party is hurling brickbats. But the demands of congressional Democrats that we throw in the towel in Iraq, their attempts to constrain the president's freedom to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program, the proposal of the Baker-Hamilton commission that we appeal to Iran to help extricate us from Iraq--all of these may be read by the radicals as signs of our imminent collapse. In the name of peace, they are hastening the advent of the next war.

Mr. Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.